> There are
> immediate and sometimes physical consequences in a
> courtroom. An
> historical debate, however, normally doesnt kill
> people.
Hm. Except when history (and archaeology) are used to
justify ancestral rights to land and wars result. Then
thousands die. But you are right: history mostly
matters as justification for wars and excuses for
non-action.
> called him a Holocaust denier. Of course, it could
> have been wrong,
> like all those courts which found the guards, the
> officers, the medical
> researchers, the race policy makers, the
> politicians, quite a number of
> people, in fact, guilty of the crimes that we are
> discussing so calmly.
The evidence in Germany and Ruanda was often
conclusive, but the law courts faced a very ugly
problem: they would have had to incarcerate a certain
percentage of the whole country's population. As a
result, many were not prosecuted and lived out their
lives in a very conscious denial of their own
complicity.
Btw, David Irving's books sold extremely well in
Germany. But then again, so did Goldhagen's:)
-Frank
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
